For ALL
ASSETS HELD AT BANK JULIUS, Baer & Company Ltd Guernsey
Branch, account number 121128, in the name of Pavlo
Lazarenko, last valued at aproximately at $2 million United
States dollars, Defendant: Bryant Everett Gardner, LEAD
ATTORNEY, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Washington, DC; Doron
Weinberg, Weinberg & Wilder, San Francisco, CA.

On
March 26, 2015, this case was referred to the undersigned for
purposes of management of discovery and resolution of any
discovery-related disputes. Currently ripe for resolution by
the undersigned is Claimant Pavel Lazarenko's Motion to
Modify the Protective Order. After a thorough review of the
parties' briefs concerning Claimant's motion, the
arguments of counsel at the hearings on the motion on
September 8, 2015, and September 11, 2015, and the entire
record herein,[1] the Court will grant in part and deny
in part the motion.

BACKGROUND

The
factual background concerning this eleven-year-old in rem
asset forfeiture action has been described in multiple
opinions by Judge Friedman. See, e.g., United States v.
All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 772
F.Supp.2d 191, 194 (D.D.C. 2011).[2] This Court will not
repeat that lengthy history here. The facts that are
pertinent to adjudication of Claimant's motion are
summarized below.

In its
First Amended Complaint, the United States seeks the
forfeiture of more than $250 million deposited in over twenty
bank accounts located in Guernsey, Antigua and Barbuda,
Switzerland, Lithuania, and Lichtenstein. First Amended
Complaint [Dkt. 20] at ¶ ¶ 1, 5. The government
alleges that the money in those accounts is traceable to a
" variety of acts of fraud, extortion, bribery,
misappropriation, and/or embezzlement" committed by
Claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, or by his
associates, between 1992 and 1998. Id. at ¶
¶ 6, 8, 10. The United States asserts its right to the
funds pursuant to federal statutes that provide for the
forfeiture to the government of funds traceable, or otherwise
related to or involved in, criminal activity that occurred at
least in part in the United States. Id. at ¶ 1.

On May
29, 2015, the Court entered a protective order in this case
which permits the parties to designate certain materials
produced in discovery as confidential. See Prot. Order at 2.
Claimant now seeks a modification of that protective order.
See Mot. at 1. Claimant requests that certain additional
materials, which are arguably not included within the scope
of the order, be added to the order to protect them from
disclosure to third parties. See id. The materials Claimant
seeks to add to the protective order are defined in the
offset paragraph on page 23 of Claimant's sealed motion.
See id. at 23. To protect the confidentiality of those
materials, the Court will refer to them as "
Claimant's Requested Materials."

LEGAL
STANDARD

Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) permits the court to issue
protective orders to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Determining whether to modify a
protective order is a matter of discretion for the trial
court. See Alexander v. FBI,186 F.R.D. 99, 100
(D.D.C. 1998); E.E.O.C. v. Nat'l Children's Ctr.,
Inc.,146 F.3d 1042, 1047, 331 U.S.App.D.C. 101 (D.C.
Cir. 1998). A protective order may be modified upon a showing
of good cause. See Alexander, 186 F.R.D. at 100;
Independent Petrochemical Corp. v. Aetna Casualty &
Surety Co., Civ. A. 83-3347, 1988 WL 23257, at *4
(D.D.C. Mar. 2, 1988) (" The granting and maintenance of
a protective order under rule 26(c) of the federal rules of
civil procedure . . . must be supported by

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.